RAA Safety-Training-Compliance Coordinator appointed

[kaz3g]

You can't turn pigsh!t into strawberry jam just by adding sugar.The obfuscation dates right back into the Steve Runciman days, when he was acting quite correctly ion desperately trying to get Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. board members to meet their obligations under the Deed of Agreement with CASA.

 

I'm sure a solution might me eminently possible now with CASA leaving no alternative, but the cold hard truth is that what both Steve Runciman and Ed Herring were doing was necessary and right, and the Constituition was being used to block them.

Turbs, you are entitled to your view and to associate with whomever you please.

 

But it is becoming more obvious, and will continue to do so, that Steve didn't give the issue a high priority ( witness his response to the question revealed by Jim T) and that Ed was pushing his own pet project that wasn't being given air under Steve's presidency.

 

And no - one can surely say that breaking all the rules, and a personal undertaking given at the EGM, was "right"? That's the first big step towards anarchy. History is littered with examples of such departures from the rule of law and their catastrophic consequences. In our little world they have caused division, distress and uncertainty commencing with the current LSA debacle and now the nepotistic appointment of a paid staff member.

 

And if people are wondering about Sue P's recent departure, they should direct their inquiries to Ed who i understand took another unilateral decision outside his role and his expertise. You might reflect on what that will cost us all.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

David,

 

I generally would agree with what you are saying if the clock started at the meeting between CASA, the President and possibly others a couple of weeks ago, the exception being that the misunderstanding outlined by Head in the Clouds, that he had board approval is not unreasonable, particularly since no one has contradicted that.

 

However, I was referring to an earlier time scale where we do have public information that the issue was considered urgent, and there was discussion after discussion where the two presidents were trying to get action on the SMS.

 

How can breaking the rules of the Constitution ever be justified? Well I'm usually the one in any meeting advocating that, but I just want to look something up, and I'll post shortly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And if people are wondering about Sue P's recent departure, they should direct their inquiries to Ed who i understand took another unilateral decision outside his role and his expertise. You might reflect on what that will cost us all.Kaz

Are you sure she has been fired? Are you sure she is not still working there?

 

I'll answer the other details shortly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, you are entitled to your view and to associate with whomever you please.

From the word associate, can you tell me who I am accused of associating with please?

 

 

[Guest Nobody]

CASA are complicit in this balls up as well. Why didn't they write to the Board back then? Why have this so called emergency meeting? Why suddenly write the letter now? Why .. perhaps because they have realised the situation they are complicit in and are now trying to get Board support for Ed's action after the fact.

How do you know that there isn't an earlier letter from CASA? Regulatory organisiations are generally very good a flagging their intentions...and covering their ar$e.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

And CASA is expert at the latter.................Maj...

 

 

[turboplanner]

And no - one can surely say that breaking all the rules, and a personal undertaking given at the EGM, was "right"? That's the first big step towards anarchy. History is littered with examples of such departures from the rule of law and their catastrophic consequences. In our little world they have caused division, distress and uncertainty commencing with the current LSA debacle and now the nepotistic appointment of a paid staff member.Kaz

 

Firstly, Incorporated Associations were introduced as a means of limiting risks to people in communities as they took up the slack from governments who were offloading risks.

 

It was recognised that the peer groups would come from all walks of life, some of limited education, so model rules provided a skeleton and wording was kept very simple, with a minimum of legalese.

 

 

You've previously contradicted my assessment of the RAA constitution where I concluded that clauses as written gave authority for the President to make the decision he did.

 

 

I argued that on the words that are written in the Constitution, you argued based on things which were NOT written in the Constitution, suggesting that might be what a Court would do.

 

 

I’m conscious that our court system flourishes on the fact that in every case heard, both lawyers believe their argument will be correct, but one lawyer will be shown to be wrong.

 

 

However, the day to day operations of an Association were never intended to take place under Court conditions, just the conditions which the peer members live in.

 

 

So I’d love to take you into VCAT, where I can stand against a lawyer and be heard, on that one.

 

 

However, even if you were 100% correct and the President had not complied with the unwritten Constitution, there are other more important clauses the President was bound to comply with:

 

 

The Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. Constitution, Clauses B4, and B5 bind him to do the following:

 

 

 

<B.4 To safeguard the interests of recreational aircraft clubs and similar bodies or any entity involved in activities connected with recreational aircraft flying in any of its branches and obtain for them such monetary or other assistance as may be possible by representations to Federal or State or any other appropriate authorities, persons or organisations.>

 

 

So the President had a much greater obligation, the minute he became aware of the failure of board members to carry out the duty laid down by CASA in the 2010 Handbook, and that RAA was in breach of the Deed of Agreement.

 

 

 

He had an imperative obligation under Clause B4 to protect clubs and FTF’s from losses arising from any sanctions handed down by CASA, and other more serious matters.

 

 

<B.5 To make rules and regulations as necessary and permitted by law governing aspects of recreational aircraft operations in which the Members of the Association or any of them are engaged and , in particular, but without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing to make rules and regulations governing certification of aircraft the conduct and activities of Members engaged in such operations in relation to the use and control of aircraft including recreational aircraft of all types during all stages of flight and the activities of Members whilst they are at, on or in the vicinity of any area from which such aircraft are being operated, launched or handled and also in relation to the ground handling, maintaining, constructing, repairing, testing, checking and transporting of the said aircraft.>

 

 

When the President of the day discovered that the board members were failing to meet their board member responsibilities as set out in the 2010 handbook, and realised there was no Safety Management System in place he had an urgent obligation to make the rules and regulations.

 

As you and many others say, this should have been done through the board members initially, who should have reacted with utmost speed, not just to approve the SMS project, but to ensure that a Safety Management System was developed in the form of manuals, personnel appointments, restructuring of responsible people and mirroring SMS’s throughout all areas of the Association’s responsibility.

 

That this was not done is evident by CASA’s ultimatums.

 

That a President finally recognised this and immediately acted is to be commended

 

 

Although some people are blaming two employees for “not doing it”, if you care to read the CASA documents, at no time was this able to be delegated to employees – it was, and is the job of board members, and while CASA are not specific on many things they are very specific on this.

 

 

The employees’ only mistake on this was not telling all board members in writing that CASA didn’t give them any option of delegating the job.

 

 

I’d like to address your comment “and now the nepotistic appointment of a paid staff member.”, and described by others as “jobs for the boys”

 

 

At the end of every war there is always some soldier who doesn’t get the message and keeps firing at people who are no longer the enemy, this is a good example.

 

The majority who appointed Steve Tizzard did not appoint Myles.

 

 

I don’t know Myles and I don’t know if he was in the CASA meeting and volunteered to step down as a board member, or whether there was a separate discussion, I don’t know whether he will be good or bad in the job, but it appears from the developments we’ve seen that he is acceptable to CASA, where we didn’t get that autonomy with aircraft registrations.

 

 

However, I do know strategy, and he has put himself in an very obvious, awkward position where he will gain nothing, "jobs for the boys" or otherwise.

 

 

He has stepped down as a board member, and as a result of what has been stirred up, may have lost the opportunity to be a board member again.

 

 

 

That’s a sacrifice FOR the members.

 

 

He would also have known that in taking on the job he faced a mountainous task. Many of you work day by day under SMS policies, and you know it doesn’t intrude significantly, the injuries are down, and the SMS manager has an easy time of it.

 

 

That is not the case for the poor devil trying to get the manuals written, and at the same time being told again and again “We don’t want all this cr$p”

 

 

So he would have known he was taking one for the members, would be in for a rough ride, and come September might have had it taken off him anyway.

 

 

Under those circumstances Kaz, your comments, and those of the others are unwarranted and hurtful to a person who is about to give a lot of his time for the members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

If by that you mean democracy was being used to block them ... what is the alternative. I am certain democracy would have worked if the Board had been presented with the CASA ultimatum letter first, not some secret meeting with the President or part Executive or whatever it was that created the alleged 'emergency'.It shoulder NEVER have happened and attempting to justify it is completely hypocritical. How can breaking the rules of the constitution ever be justified, no matter what the reason? If we don't like the rules then action changes (some of which we have already done and many more yet to follow). But to be successful at that we will need bi-partisan support.

I've tried to address most of this, but there is a post somewhere from a former board member referring to a "panic" way back so I don't have any doubt the obfuscation of Presidents started long ago and we are just reacting to the final death throes of it.

 

Re breaking the rules of the Association, I've tried to put some perspective on that in my answer to Kaz.

 

The rules of the Constitution in this matter were broken at least three years ago, and that's where members' anger should be pointed to.

 

There are certainly people who could be held directly responsible for this fiasco, I agree none of it should have happened.

 

Above all else, if the Executives of the times and the board managers of the times hand not stayed with this ridiculous secrecy from members, it would not have happened becaise there would have been members who work in SMS Companies who would have immediately stepped in and pointed out the safety risk, and the non compliance risk.

 

Call me a hypocrite, but the current President did not contravene the Constitution as it is written, however I readily admit this all could have been resolved better if he had immediately posted on the RAA website a short bulletin of what was happening at each stage immediately - not the internal wrangles of the members over it, not in camera material (another job to adjust the constitution), but a simple, open statement, like we are seeing on the RAA site now. He obviously has his reasons for not doing this, but that's my only criticism.

 

 

[John G]

Turbs, I do know the guy and you are being over generous in stating that there is no self-interest involved and that he is doing it for the members.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In which case, if true, he would need to be quickly fired, because of the massive workload which needs to be done, and the momentum of the FTF SMS manual developments, discussions on common procedures etc. This is not something that a single person can ever do, he has to co-ordinate and any screwing around will become immediately obvious.

 

However, just at this point a week is down already, but it's a bit early to audit the progress.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

It would have been interesting to see what the SQ members would have done come the next election. It might have been an interesting battle, 3 candidates for 2 positions. Now we'll never know.

 

Nick

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

True.....Lazarus was raised apparently after 4 days of being dead....MB was announced dead June 5th.....or 2 weeks ago..........Don't think we'll see an unresigning taking place here....a few days was a stretch....2 weeks......that would be a life time!! In fact if it were tried then clearly the next unresigning needs to be John Gardon....IMHO!

 

 

[turboplanner]

You taking the situation very stoicly drifter - you do realise you are directly involved in the fallout from the earlier situations where the safety net didn't exist?

 

 

[drifterdriver]

I try to control my destructive emotions Turbo but it doesn't always work. I could rant a rave far more than I do but to what purpose. Yes I could possibly refute (or support) many of the claims made here but I simply cannot devote the time to find the proof to verify my points. I think we will agree that there's far to many unsubstantiated claims made on this forum and I have no desire to add to the list.

 

Nick

 

 

[turboplanner]

I was thinking of your own protection; contact me if you want.

 

 

[Keith Page]

You can't turn pigsh!t into strawberry jam just by adding sugar.The obfuscation dates right back into the Steve Runciman days, when he was acting quite correctly ion desperately trying to get Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. board members to meet their obligations under the Deed of Agreement with CASA.

 

I'm sure a solution might me eminently possible now with CASA leaving no alternative, but the cold hard truth is that what both Steve Runciman and Ed Herring were doing was necessary and right, and the Constituition was being used to block them.

Good one Turbo

 

You will get some stick from Alfa/Alpha for saying that.

 

I am back from duty and I see Alfa/Alpha has given me some stick hence I will have to sieve through the posts and discover which of his comments are worthy of a reply.

 

(YES Turbo):- Steve and Ed were being voted down by the board, by a majority rules thingo when we vote. Hence Ed's emergency actions.

 

Thank you ED. Thank you Myles for stepping up to the plate.

 

Major had a good idea have a cup of coffee with Steve and get an understanding of what is going on and learn something.

 

Their (board) main gripe was "We can not afford that (SMS)". News we have to afford it or close shop.

 

I would love to have some time and spend two or three days in our capital city.

 

Regards,

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[Chird65]

Good one Turbo......

Major had a good idea have a cup of coffee with Steve and get an understanding of what is going on and learn something.

 

Their (board) main gripe was "We can not afford that (SMS)". ....

Keith, I agree that being able to sit down and talk would be great but that is not practical. I still would rather all of this follow due process.

 

If the main gripe/reason for the board not supporting the SMS then that brings us to the next point. Who should pay for the SMS.

 

If we have a president saying we are in default of a deed of agreement, and the board decides to not fix that then the president needs to put that in a motion to the board have it voted on and then communicate to the authority. If it sounds far fetched that a board would vote against complying with the Authority then I agree. What I surmise happened was it was never put that plainly that a solution was put to the board and not a requirement, that the full information was not available to the full board and personalities ruled rather than reason.

 

I do not work in an area where SMS is a daily thing but we do have OH&S and company policy, this is backed by training and monthly audits of policy compliance. From my reading a SMS is evolving system that moves and grows around different environments to achieve safety. I think even the start that the board accepts the need for our association to have a SMS and then getting the Flight schools and Clubs involved in developing the SMS would have placated CASA. A regular board communication to show the status and an audit environment to show compliance would have allowed the SMS to not be forgotten.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

If you are referring to the document sent to all FTF's last Tuesday, that is a proforma shell, not an SMS. some of the single lines in that shell will need to be expanded to 5o pages before it can be referred to as an SMS.. . .

 

It is not possible to reconcile your claim to CASA's threat - one of you has to be wrong.

The 26 page template sent to the FTFs was just that, a Template. The document we signed off in Feb 2012 was the base document for the system. What CASA wanted was for it to be auctioned and implemented, a not unreasonable request. But for the lack of industry on the part of our former CEO, it would have been rolled out 12 months back.

 

So, clearly, CASA and I are in total agreement. :-/

 

 

[turboplanner]

The 26 page template sent to the FTFs was just that, a Template. The document we signed off in Feb 2012 was the base document for the system. What CASA wanted was for it to be auctioned and implemented, a not unreasonable request. But for the lack of industry on the part of our former CEO, it would have been rolled out 12 months back.So, clearly, CASA and I are in total agreement. :-/

OK so we've now established that there was not an SMS system in place in 2012, which is what I said. A base document and a shell proforma are just that, they are not a system with Manuals, training, culture changes, visible warnings, inductions etc.

 

What CASA wanted is irrelevant; In February 2012 Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. and probably CASA had been in default of operational safety requirements since 2010 that we have proof of, and probably long before that.

 

The February 2012 meeting was a step in the right direction, but as I recall Steve Tizzard was given the job of setting up the SMS, which very specifically was the written responsibility of each board member according to the CASA document and there was no provision for this responsibility to be delegated.

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Well.........What did Ed tell you Mr AR

I could tell you but then I'd have to . . .

 

Essentially what he has been saying elsewhere. That he had to do it because it had to be done and he felt that the Board had given him the right to act unilaterally. Clearly, the majority of the Board have said they would support him as President but equally clearly, they don't believe that included Carte Blanche.

 

Don (aka AR)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Turbo

 

delegation of work does not = delegation of responsibility.

 

It to me is perfectly acceptable to delegate work and retain responsibility, but in doing so you obviously must check that work is being done and at a quality and timeliness that is acceptable.

 

Historical posts of Alpha and certainly emails show that he was routinely questioning progress of the CEO on a whole series of matters. That his view was clearly not a board view was hardly a secret to anyone!!! (just review the last AGM minutes......as poor a record of the events as they are.......) He specifically asked on progress with the list of action items, of which this was one....

 

Are you suggesting that he delegated responsibility?

 

Andy

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

Are you sure?I have been unable to locate any such system.

The template recently issued refers to

 

The (Name of the FTF) will parallel the RA-Aus risk management system as outlined in the RA-Aus Safety Management System and Risk Management Manual (Appendix 1.)

 

There was nothing at Appendix 1. in the template.

 

Does the "RA-Aus Safety Management System and Risk Management Manual" exist? If so, where can I get a copy?:

I would like to reply to this properly but finding it impossible on my iPad. More later but suffice to say that all I have written here is 100 % true. If you want a copy you are entitled under our Rules to request one and get it.

 

Don

 

 

[David Isaac]

...... Call me a hypocrite .....

Would never do that buddy, I have too much respect for you , I may argue that your reasoning may be hypocritical in logic in this case though.

 

 

[drifterdriver]

Is "call me a hypocrite" anything like "call me a cab?"

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo delegation of work does not = delegation of responsibility.It to me is perfectly acceptable to delegate work and retain responsibility, but in doing so you obviously must check that work is being done and at a quality and timeliness that is acceptable.

Historical posts of Alpha and certainly emails show that he was routinely questioning progress of the CEO on a whole series of matters. That his view was clearly not a board view was hardly a secret to anyone!!! (just review the last AGM minutes......as poor a record of the events as they are.......) He specifically asked on progress with the list of action items, of which this was one....

 

Are you suggesting that he delegated responsibility?

 

Andy

It almost seems that you "and the group of which I am a part" have decided the latest method for a successful coup is to all beat me up at once; I am only a poor boy who had to leave school at the age of 26 to help out on the farm, but here goes:

 

Rather than split hairs yet again, this time over just conversation, let's go back to what CASA says:

 

4 (a) Ensure the organisation's SMS framework is current and up to date.

 

The pocket Oxford Dictionary defines "ensure" as make sure, secure, "ensure that thing will happen"

 

They are definitives (to be regarded as final, not subject to revision)

 

CASA does not say "Give it to Tizzard and if he doesn't do it well that's his fault"

 

History shows it wasn't done, and still isn't done

 

I'm not on a witch hunt for Alpha; I know he had a lot of problems in the dysfunctional atmosphere.

 

But you cannot as an organization which is non compliant, in not having a safety system, to a Safety Authority, while having an abnormally high fatality rate continue to defy that authority on the grounds that an official might not have acted in accordance with an Association Constitution. Aside from anything else you leave the association open to legal claims, and given that FTF's are workplaces, you run the risk of them wandering in to have a look at your procedures also.